Diakite v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Andrew Carter
- 1:23-cv-00725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Diakite v. USCIS, Judge Carter denied reconsideration because agency action made the request for court-ordered processing moot.
Diakite, whose request for reconsideration was denied, and USCIS, whose earlier agency action was held to have made the original request moot.
What happened
In Diakite v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Diakite asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of the case. The earlier case sought an order requiring USCIS to act on Diakite’s application.
Diakite argued that the earlier decision overlooked issues involving the delay in processing, the correction of a resident card, the agency’s authority to begin proceedings, and service of a notice. The court said USCIS had already processed the application and adjusted Diakite’s status to lawful permanent resident, providing the relief originally requested. It also said some later issues had separate administrative procedures and could not be reviewed because administrative remedies had not been exhausted.
Judge Carter denied the motion for reconsideration. The court said that reconsideration requires an overlooked controlling decision or information, new evidence, an intervening change in law, or a clear error or manifest injustice, and that Diakite had not met that standard. The order states that Diakite had 30 days to file a possible appeal.
The detailed version
- Diakite v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · No. 1:23-cv-00725
- Andrew Carter
- May 14, 2024
Background
In an earlier opinion issued on March 11, 2024, the court granted USCIS’s motion to dismiss Diakite’s action. Diakite then moved for reconsideration, arguing that the earlier opinion contained clear errors of fact and law.
Diakite identified issues concerning the more than ten-year delay in processing an application, USCIS’s authority to correct the approved resident card, whether a court could order USCIS to perform duties required by law, USCIS’s authority to begin notice-of-intent-to-revoke proceedings, and whether USCIS personally served the required notice.
Court’s Analysis
A motion for reconsideration asks the court to revisit an earlier decision. The court explained that this remedy has a strict standard. It generally requires the moving party to identify an overlooked controlling decision or information, newly available evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or a clear error that would cause manifest injustice. It is not a vehicle for rearguing matters already presented or raising new facts, issues, or arguments.
The court acknowledged that the earlier opinion did not decide some of the issues Diakite raised. It nevertheless held that this did not satisfy the reconsideration standard. The court relied on its earlier conclusion that USCIS had processed Diakite’s 2011 application and adjusted Diakite’s status to lawful permanent resident, which provided the relief sought in the original request for a court order requiring agency action. Because the requested relief was no longer needed, the court held that the case was moot and that it no longer had subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court also stated that the propriety of the notice-of-intent-to-revoke proceedings and the correction of the green card’s issuance date arose after the original request for relief. In addition, the court said separate administrative procedures were available for the proceedings and service issues, and that the exhaustion requirement prevented judicial review at that point.
Disposition
The court considered Diakite’s remaining arguments and found them without merit. It denied the motion for reconsideration. The order states that, under the cited federal appellate rules, Diakite had 30 days from entry of the order to file any anticipated notice of appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.